A/HRC/44/49 D. Public health disinformation 41. In a speech delivered at the Munich Security Conference on 15 February 2020, the Director-General of WHO noted that “fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous”. WHO has noted the emergence of what it calls, an “infodemic” which involves “the rapid spread of information of all kinds, including rumours, gossip and unreliable information”.48 Public health authorities around the world have been legitimately concerned about disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unreliable information, particularly when disseminated by individuals with significant platforms, can cause grave harm, whether maliciously intended or not. WHO has stated that “successful management of infodemics will be based on (1) monitoring and identifying them, (2) analysis of them, and (3) control and mitigation measures”.49 42. As noted above, the thrust of the WHO guidance emphasizes risk communication, including engagement with rumours in order to correct them. This general guidance, silent on whether prohibiting false information is legitimate, nonetheless suggests consistency with the position taken by human rights monitors and experts. The principles of legality and necessity should be applied to any approach to disinformation. In particular, “disinformation” is an extraordinarily elusive concept to define in law, susceptible to providing executive authorities with excessive discretion to determine what is disinformation, what is a mistake, what is truth. Moreover, as emphasized in a recent joint statement issued by freedom of expression monitors of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, “any attempts to criminalise information relating to the pandemic may create distrust in institutional information, delay access to reliable information and have a chilling effect on freedom of expression”. 50 In other words, the penalization of disinformation is disproportionate, failing to achieve its goal of tamping down information while instead deterring individuals from sharing what could be valuable information. 43. Information management may be seen through the lens of government obligations and company responsibilities, particularly companies involved in Internet searching or social media. 1. Governments and pandemic disinformation 44. While much of the public discussion concerning false pandemic information concerns the steps government and private companies should take to remove such information or punish those who spread it, it is important to begin with government itself. In their 2017 joint declaration on freedom of expression and “fake news”, disinformation and propaganda, a set of simple and seemingly obvious points was set out. This included the following: State actors should not make, sponsor, encourage or further disseminate statements which they know or reasonably should know to be false (disinformation) or which demonstrate a reckless disregard for verifiable information (propaganda). State actors should, in accordance with their domestic and international legal obligations and their public duties, take care to ensure that they disseminate reliable and trustworthy information, including about matters of public interest, such as the economy, public health, security and the environment.51 45. Unfortunately, there are numerous instances of State actors disseminating unverified and often reckless claims about the origins of the COVID-19 virus, the responsibility for the pandemic, the presence or extent of COVID-19 in their country and the availability of drugs to counter the symptoms, and other harmful assertions. Such claims, which are 48 49 50 51 WHO, Managing Epidemics, p. 34. Ibid. “COVID-19: Governments must promote and protect access to and free flow of information during pandemic – international experts“, 19 March 2020. Paragraph 2 (c) and (d) of the joint declaration. 13